Virgin birth

SubjectSean · 01-01-2008 1:39pm

Jakkass wrote: »

It says "young woman". Just wondering... do you not think that it is possible for a young woman to be also a virgin. That isn't a twisting of facts.

Yes that is possible I am sure but I'm fairly certain that virgins can't give birth. I also think that if God can't get through to us without entirely suspending the nature of Its creation then It didn't think things through very well concerning our credulity. This too I find unlikely. I'm far more inclined to think the story was twisted to fit facts on the back of Isaiah 7:14 in the Septuagint mis-translation. I don't need God to do party tricks, it's enough of a miricle that we're here at all.

Oafley Jones · 01-01-2008 1:57pm

'Virgin Birth' is not unique to christianity. Indeed the term used to refer to a girl given birth before she had her first period. 'Virgin birth' does not preclude sexual activity.

philologos · 01-01-2008 5:07pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

Yes that is possible I am sure but I'm fairly certain that virgins can't give birth. I also think that if God can't get through to us without entirely suspending the nature of Its creation then It didn't think things through very well concerning our credulity. This too I find unlikely. I'm far more inclined to think the story was twisted to fit facts on the back of Isaiah 7:14 in the Septuagint mis-translation. I don't need God to do party tricks, it's enough of a miricle that we're here at all.

The whole lot regardless of what language is a bit incredible or unlikely to you that's fair enough.

The facts are the statement says "A young woman will give birth", is that true?

Virgins can't give birth, unless by divine intervention, that is the Christian point. So how if you believe the Christian version, is Isaiah 7:14 rendered false? The clear cut answer is that it isn't. Infact it's totally coherent with the parameters of the Virgin Birth.

SubjectSean · 01-01-2008 5:35pm

Jakkass wrote: »

The whole lot regardless of what language is a bit incredible or unlikely to you that's fair enough.

The facts are the statement says "A young woman will give birth", is that true?

Yes AFAIK in the Hebrew Isaiah 7:14 reads "A young woman" but in the Septuagint we have "Virgin". Now as I have said I take this to indicate a degree of twisting the story to fit the facts. However I only see things this way because there are other examples in the NT where this 'twist-to-fit' has occurred. For instance Matthew 21 has Jesus riding both a donkey and a colt (two creatures) similtaneously. This stupidity, like the virgin birth, hinges on the evangelists inability to understand the original prophecy "riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey". The facts have clearly been changed to fit the misunderstanding unless of course you happen to believe that Jesus was a circus performer.

Jakkass wrote: »

Virgins can't give birth, unless by divine intervention, that is the Christian point. So how if you believe the Christian version, is Isaiah 7:14 rendered false? The clear cut answer is that it isn't. Infact it's totally coherent with the parameters of the Virgin Birth.

It is true that Isaiah is not rendered false by the Christian interpretation however given the facts it seems highly likely that this interpretation hinges on mis-translation of the Jewish scripture rather than any lack of clarity on the part of the prophet.

philologos · 01-01-2008 7:42pm

SubjectSean wrote: »

Yes AFAIK in the Hebrew Isaiah 7:14 reads "A young woman" but in the Septuagint we have "Virgin". Now as I have said I take this to indicate a degree of twisting the story to fit the facts. However I only see things this way because there are other examples in the NT where this 'twist-to-fit' has occurred. For instance Matthew 21 has Jesus riding both a donkey and a colt (two creatures) similtaneously. This stupidity, like the virgin birth, hinges on the evangelists inability to understand the original prophecy "riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey". The facts have clearly been changed to fit the misunderstanding unless of course you happen to believe that Jesus was a circus performer.

Come on Sean let's be honest here. It isn't the only part by which you allege that "twist to fit" has occurred. Do you have any sources that can conclusively prove that this has happened?

Also on the donkeys, you should read this explanation. It's rather good:
http://www.carm.org/diff/Mark11_2.htm

If you say that they have clearly been changed, I believe the onus is on you to prove that. So far there has been nothing of conclusive proof.

SubjectSean wrote:

It is true that Isaiah is not rendered false by the Christian interpretation however given the facts it seems highly likely that this interpretation hinges on mis-translation of the Jewish scripture rather than any lack of clarity on the part of the prophet.

Give me reason why it is highly likely. I don't understand this. It seems highly likely to you perhaps.

davem2007 · 01-01-2008 8:47pm

As a child your religion is dictated by the people who bring you up, I presume that is fair to say.
[FONT=&quot]Have a look at this, it’s on You Tube and type in ZEITGEIST[/FONT]

ShoulderChip · 01-01-2008 8:58pm

That is an excellent video davem2007,
everyone should watch it.
www.zeitgeistmovie.com

philologos · 01-01-2008 9:04pm

oh my my. Not Zeitgeist again. Search this forum for Zeitgeist, Horus or Mithras and you will find a lot of threads on it.

davem2007 · 01-01-2008 9:41pm

Jakkass

Sometimes the truth hurts, how many VERGIN BIRTHS have been noted in history.
Zeitgeist will open many eyes.

philologos · 01-01-2008 9:46pm

davem2007 wrote: »

Jakkass

Sometimes the truth hurts, how many VERGIN BIRTHS have been noted in history.
Zeitgeist will open many eyes.

Search the forum. You will see how many times this has been discussed.

MooseJam · 01-01-2008 11:58pm

so virgin birth is just a miss-translation, if it is then why does anybody believe it ?

philologos · 02-01-2008 12:06am

It's a mistranslation in the prophesy, not in the New Testament actual account of it. I still haven't found any explanation why a young woman could not be a virgin.

PDN · 02-01-2008 1:04am

Jakkass wrote: »

It's a mistranslation in the prophesy, not in the New Testament actual account of it. I still haven't found any explanation why a young woman could not be a virgin.

Quite correct, the New Testament plainly says that Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant and remained so until the child was born.

I also doubt whether the Isiah prophecy is mistranslated. The whole point of the prophecy was that this would be a miraculous sign. I don't think a young woman giving birth is really very miraculous. So, I think there is a fair argument to be made that the translators of the Septuagint translated the word very well and were faithful to the context of Isaiah's prophecy.

SubjectSean · 02-01-2008 1:47am

Jakkass wrote: »

Come on Sean let's be honest here. It isn't the only part by which you allege that "twist to fit" has occurred.

Indeed but I don't think I was being dishonest, I said explicitly that I believe there are 'other examples' in the NT where this 'twist-to-fit' has occurred

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you have any sources that can conclusively prove that this has happened?

No but by the same token it would be just as hard to conclusively prove that this had not happened. It was all so long ago. I have only my rationality, some knowledge of human behavoiur and the belief that God is pure Logic.

Jakkass wrote: »

Also on the donkeys, you should read this explanation. It's rather good:
http://www.carm.org/diff/Mark11_2.htm

Hmmm I disagree it focuses on the fact that some people quibble over an apparent contadiction between the synoptics about the number of beasts of burden involved. It does not address the point that Matthew sits Jesus astride both animals at the same time. It is this that is the square peg in a round hole and Zechariah 9:9 is the hammer that drove it there.

Jakkass wrote: »

If you say that they have clearly been changed, I believe the onus is on you to prove that. So far there has been nothing of conclusive proof.

Give me reason why it is highly likely. I don't understand this. It seems highly likely to you perhaps.

I can prove nothing to you conclusively unless we were actually stood there long ago to see Jesus NOT sprawled out with his legs akimbo across two animals of differing heights and trying to steer them towards Jerusalem. However the sheer lunacy of this vista should be proof enough.

I've lived with people who have a highly developed belief in the supernatural. People who believe very strongly in good and malign spirits and in witches and sorcerers. Time and time again I have seen happenings that were not at all supernatural become supernatural in the telling. If they are written down do they become true? My God knows that I know this and that I look at the story the people left us of Jesus with this fact in my heart. IMO long ago people needed miracles to believe, but now we have science to look at the creation in depth, the beauty and wonder of it is all the miracle we need.

stevejazzx · 02-01-2008 1:49am

PDN wrote: »

I also doubt whether the Isiah prophecy is mistranslated. The whole point of the prophecy was that this would be a miraculous sign. I don't think a young woman giving birth is really very miraculous. So, I think there is a fair argument to be made that the translators of the Septuagint translated the word very well and were faithful to the context of Isaiah's prophecy.

Have to say I disagree, this came up before and from what I can gather, going by the Jewish translation from the Herbrew which I imagine is the most pertinent the translation favours 'young woman'.

24tn (7:14) Traditionally, “virgin.” Because this verse from Isaiah is quoted in Matt 1:23 in

connection with Jesus’ birth, the Isaiah passage has been regarded since the earliest

Christian times as a prophecy of Christ’s virgin birth. Much debate has taken place

over the best way to translate this Hebrew term, although ultimately one’s view of the

doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is unaffected. Though the Hebrew word used here,

äîìò, (‘almah) can sometimes refer to a woman who is a virgin (Gen 24:43), it does

not carry this meaning inherently. The word is simply the feminine form of the

corresponding masculine noun, íìò (‘elem), “young man”; cf. 1 Sam.17:56; 20:22).

The Aramaic and Ugaritic cognate terms are both used of women who are not virgins.

The word seems to pertain to age, not sexual experience, and would normally be

translated “young woman.” The LXX translator(s) who later translated the Book of

Isaiah into Greek sometime between the second and first century B.C., however,

rendered the Hebrew term by the more specific Greek word parqenoz (parthenos),

which does mean “virgin” in a technical sense. This is the Greek term that also

appears in the citation of Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23. Therefore, regardless of the meaning

of the term in the OT context, in the NT Matthew’s usage of the Greek term

parqenoz (parthenos) clearly indicates that from his perspective a virgin birth has

taken place.

from

http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html

SubjectSean · 02-01-2008 1:59am

PDN wrote: »

I don't think a young woman giving birth is really very miraculous. .

Here we disagree PDN. Quarks to stars to stardust to humans. Show me how it's done

PDN · 02-01-2008 2:02am

SubjectSean wrote: »

It does not address the point that Matthew sits Jesus astride both animals at the same time.

Actually Matthew doesn't - so maybe it is you who are twisting and fitting?

Matthew's words are: "They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him on them." This could mean one of three things.

a) The second 'them' may well refer to the clothes, not to the donkey and the ass. In this case Matthew is simply saying that they put clothes on the backs of the animals and Jesus sat on the clothes.

b) The second 'them' may indeed refer to the donkey and the ass, but Matthew does not say that Jesus sat astride them both at the same time. It is perfectly plausible that he rode the donkey part of the way and then completed the journey on the colt.

c) A third possibility is that some form of litter or carriage was balanced on both animals, so that they worked in tandem or side-by-side.

SubjectSean · 02-01-2008 2:21am

PDN wrote: »

Actually Matthew doesn't - so maybe it is you who are twisting and fitting?

Matthew's words are: "They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him on them." This could mean one of three things.

I admit the three things you mention but find in favour of the fourth which you fail to mention. Namely that the author of Matthew was trying his utmost to make the story of Jesus fit with the Jewish prophecies of the Messiah.

Zechariah 9:9 YLT

"Rejoice exceedingly, O daughter of Zion, Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem, Lo, thy King doth come to thee, Righteous -- and saved is He, Afflicted -- and riding on an ass, And on a colt -- a son of she-asses."

It seems fairly conclusive to my mind that the author of Matthew has mistken the Hebrew literaray device of double emphasis for two separate creatures and has compounded the error by having Jesus ride them both at once. I do however recognise that we are unlikely to agree over this

philologos · 02-01-2008 12:01pm

The mother generally was attached to the colt as the colt is rather weak. That's what the link I gave anyway.

MooseJam · 04-01-2008 9:33pm

PDN wrote: »

Quite correct, the New Testament plainly says that Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant and remained so until the child was born.

who wrote it and how do they know she was a virgin ? was she given a gynecological exam ?

GuanYin · 04-01-2008 10:04pm

It hink a few peopkle here are a little confused.

According to the Bible, Jesus's birth wasn't a virgin birth at all and it's only in latter day translations that this was interpreted..

Mary's birth was a virgin birth, "The immacualte conception of mary" because only someone who was pure and free from original sin would be worthy to give birth to our lord and savior.

The whole "Mary was a virgin" thing is a complete misconception and not backed up by anything in the bible.

PDN · 05-01-2008 6:57pm

psi wrote: »

It hink a few peopkle here are a little confused.

According to the Bible, Jesus's birth wasn't a virgin birth at all and it's only in latter day translations that this was interpreted..

Mary's birth was a virgin birth, "The immacualte conception of mary" because only someone who was pure and free from original sin would be worthy to give birth to our lord and savior.

The whole "Mary was a virgin" thing is a complete misconception and not backed up by anything in the bible.

You are the one who is confused. You appear to be unable to distinguish between the virgin birth (the biblical doctrine that Mary had no sexual intercourse prior to the birth of Jesus) and the Immaculate Conception (the nonbiblical Catholic doctrine that Mary was herself born without original sin, although as a result of normal sexual intercourse on the part of Mary's parents).

My only confusion is why somebody would post on a subject that they apparently know nothing about.

The earliest extant New Testament manuscripts (in the original Greek, so not translations) include the virgin birth. There is no evidence (none, zilch, zero, nada) of any earlier versions that did not include the virgin birth. The idea that the doctrine of the virgin birth was only introduced in 'latter day' translations is breathtakingly ignorant and totally without any historical or textual support.

Spyral · 05-01-2008 6:59pm

who wrote it and how do they know she was a virgin ? was she given a gynecological exam ?

i think that tradition has it that she was a temple virgin servant type thing and that old widows would marry them to have them as house keepers and to help them but also to look after them for the temple.

dont ask me where i heard that from cannae remember

Zombrex · 15-01-2008 11:09am

PDN wrote: »

My only confusion is why somebody would post on a subject that they apparently know nothing about.

I ask that question about the Creationist thread every day

wolfsbane · 15-01-2008 11:30pm

psi said:

The whole "Mary was a virgin" thing is a complete misconception and not backed up by anything in the bible.

Back to basics - just read what the Biblical account of Christ's conception says:
Luke 1:30 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”
34 Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

Note Mary's question and the angel's reply. A virgin conception.

And she continued a virgin until Jesus was born:
Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. 20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.”
22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”
24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.

Note the penultimate verse - and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. Mary had no sex until after the birth of Jesus.

JoeB- · 16-01-2008 12:24am

Jakkass wrote: »

It is the right of the parent to bring up their children in a particular faith.

You're on shaky ground here.... children aren't the property of the parents.

For example is it acceptable for a parent to bring their children up believing that the sun is a God and that humans must be sacrificed in order to propogate it? Or that witches fly at night and curse people? Or that strange creatures live in the bog that have magical powers? (If you object please explain why these aren't valid faith systems).

Or that blood tranfusions are bad or evil and that it is preferable to die rather than receive one? (I would love to hear your explanation as to how that doesn't put lives at risk as surely as if the parents teach that cars aren't really there and it is ok to walk in front of them)

Or that black people are inferior to white people and that it is fine to slaughter them?

All of the above beliefs are held by (some) parents but we'd be in a bad way as a society if parents were free to take advantage of their childrens gullibility and teach them those beliefs as if they were as valid as the belief that the Earth is round.

You seem to treat children as property of parents... it is clearly NOT ok for parents to beat their children... or to lock them in a basement and deny them sunlight... it is even illegal to deny them a proper education...

So in summary, if parents insist on denying what is considered true (by science etc) and instead try to force their own (unprovable and crazy) beliefs on the children it is wrong and the children should be taken away and cared for.

Parents have obligations to care for the children, not rights to do whatever they want, that is an important distinction.

This goes for denying evolution and instead trying to teach creationism as fact when it clearly goes against science...

philologos · 16-01-2008 4:03pm

Joe: The same could be said with bringing a child up secular in certain circumstances.

JoeB- · 16-01-2008 7:37pm

Jackass.

I don't agree... consider unnecessary medical interventions... Jewish boys are circumcised for no medical reason, simply a religious belief. This isn't too bad I don't think but it is still an unnecessary medical intervention.

And what about female mutilation? (i.e female 'circumcision'). This is clearly unnecessary, and is a mutilation of the young girls body. Obviously the government should send parents to jail who exist on carrying it out.

Some parents may want to permanently tattoo their children... obviously not acceptable in my view. (Even ear rings could be considered an assualt but a minor one)

The point is that parents are free to believe whatever they want but their children should be protected from parents.

The belief that blood tranfusions are 'wrong' results in death in some cases... so there you go. You may have seen the guy on discovery channel who has a tumor larger than his head on his face.. he refuses an operation because a blood transfusion is required.. so he has to live with a large tumor which puts his health at risk. Simply because of his religion.

Also please elaborate on how bringing a child up secular can damage the child in any circumstance?

Fanny Cradock · 17-01-2008 1:15am

JoeBallantine wrote: »

Jackass. I don't agree... consider unnecessary medical interventions... Jewish boys are circumcised for no medical reason, simply a religious belief. This isn't too bad I don't think but it is still an unnecessary medical intervention.

In America boys are regularly circumcised regardless of religion. It's seen as purely a health issue.

"The American Urological Association (2007) believes that neonatal circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks. In the context of HIV studies carried out in Africa, the AUA states that while "the results of studies in African nations may not necessarily be extrapolated to men in the United States at risk for HIV infection," the AUA "recommends that circumcision should be presented as an option for health benefits." (Wiki)

JoeBallantine wrote: »

And what about female mutilation? (i.e female 'circumcision'). This is clearly unnecessary, and is a mutilation of the young girls body. Obviously the government should send parents to jail who exist on carrying it out.

A horrible practice as it is, I fail to see it's relevance to Christianity in Ireland.
Indeed, according to Wiki "Although FGC is practiced within particular religious sub-cultures, FGC transcends religion as it is primarily a cultural practice."

Circumcision and FGC! Man alive, I've been looking up some odd stuff on Wiki.

JoeBallantine wrote: »

Some parents may want to permanently tattoo their children... obviously not acceptable in my view. (Even ear rings could be considered an assualt but a minor one)

As above, I would argue that tattooing is more a cultural practice than a strictly religious one. Admittedly I've seen children - young toddlers no less - with their ears pierced in Dublin on a few occasions. However, there is nothing to suggest that this had anything to do with the parents religious beliefs.

JoeBallantine wrote: »

You may have seen the guy on discovery channel who has a tumor larger than his head on his face.. he refuses an operation because a blood transfusion is required.. so he has to live with a large tumor which puts his health at risk. Simply because of his religion.

As ridiculous a decision as it may seem to the rest of us it's his choice. Besides, lets not get all puritanical here (excuse the phrase). One could level the same health risk argument at those who smoke, drink to excess or take vast quantities of drugs.

JoeBallantine wrote: »

Also please elaborate on how bringing a child up secular can damage the child in any circumstance?

If they grew up with the same level of intolerance that you seem to display then I would argue that they have already been damaged.

philologos · 17-01-2008 8:26am

JoeBallantine wrote: »

Some parents may want to permanently tattoo their children... obviously not acceptable in my view. (Even ear rings could be considered an assualt but a minor one)

Tattoos are forbidden both in Christianity and Judaism, depending on how you regard the Law of Moses. I wouldn't anyway.

Virgin birth

Comments